The Untimely Death of Linear TV
I’ve written before about the sorry state of linear television in the United Kingdom. The consistently poor decisions from our main television networks and the premature shift from television to streaming making it difficult for exclusive TV viewers to receive the best programming a station can offer.
Just under a year since I wrote that piece, little to nothing has improved. In fact, the rot has spread.
I spoke in that piece about how, whilst some companies have put pedal to the metal in terms of investing in streaming, others have remained essentially immune. Like Channel 5.
Channel 5 has always been the more tory-esque station in the UK’s “big 4” networks. It caters to older viewers, a far-cry from it’s 90s roots, so a big streaming presence would do more bad than good. They seemed to think so too. Whilst they do have a streaming service, it’s more stripped back, less in-your-face than the other services like ITVX or All4oD.
Until around August last year. Channel 5 announced that it would be rebranding itself to…5. Not the word “five” like it was in the 2000s. Just 5. I always to get a bit worried when a company says it’s rebranding to introduce a more “uniform experience” or “joining our brands together”. Channel 4 did that. UKTV did that. And what happened to them?
It’s a bit too early to call it a failure; though it was announced 5 months ago, the rebrand hasn’t actually happened yet. Apparently, it’s branding is being designed by a company called Pablo, who primarily work in advertising, such as the #thingsparation ads from DFS, or the Plus Life ads from Deliveroo. Bit of a weird choice, but we’ll have to see how it plays out.
Though unfortunately, typing “Pablo” into Google search brings up some questionable results…
Now, over to our good friends at Channel 4.
Since the apoplectic she-bitch from hell Alex Mahon became CEO of Channel 4 8 years ago, the corporation has made some…really weird decisions pertaining to both programming and how it aligns itself with certain political positions.
Get The Frontier’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Let’s start with Hollyoaks, arguably Channel 4’s most watched evening programme outside of the news. In 2023, the decision was taken, oddly, to move it not just online, but to E4 too.
Now Hollyoaks had quite a presence on E4 already; the First Look had aired on it for a number of years and morning re-runs were ubiquitous. So moving it to E4 sort of makes sense. But that’s about where all that ends.
Hollyoaks was a pretty popular show on a pretty popular network. So moving it at all was a bit of an odd move. There’s also the case of avalibility. In some parts of the country, Freeview avalibility or reception for some channels is abysmal, especially here in the Westcountry. In some places, even the BBC channels are unrecievable. So moving the show to a channel that isn’t only not as popular, but also completely unrecievable in some locations, is a strange move, which has undoubtedly hurt the programme, and the mother channel’s viewing figures as a result. Though it is available on Channel 4’s streaming service…somewhere, it doesn’t help all that much.
But it gets worse, some people don’t learn. In December, Channel 4 announced The Simpsons would no longer air on the station, and would instead move to a teatime slot on, you guessed it, E4.
My question is, why are Channel 4 moving some of their most popular and well-established shows to a less popular, more specifically targeted channel just so they can fit in one more episode of Four In A Bed. Not to mention C4’s incredibly poor communication leading to media outlets shitting themselves in a gammon-induced anger:
It’s just a really confusing move for a network to take, especially when they consistently complain that nobody is watching linear TV anymore. Yeah sure, why not, lets finish the last remaining viewers off!
There. Rant over. Watch telly. Buy a Sky box.
